Hey wait a moment.... [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2018-06-27 11:45 (1502 d 14:43 ago) – Posting: # 18974
Views: 11,420

Hi ElMaestro,

» […] I think I will need to put it into reverse here:
» Let us say both R1 and R2 are (truly) not BE…
»
» We need that alpha correction. Sorry.
Haha, this time you answered a question not asked. ;-)

You want to get both T1 and T2 approved.

T1 = R ∧ T2 = R: ⇒ 95% CI

Clearly needs an adjustment because of the simultaneous tests and both T1 and T2 will be marketed.

You want to get either T1 or T2 approved.

T1 = R ∨ T2 = R: ⇒ 95% CI

In this case I argued for no adjustment (90% CI) in the past but nowadays I’m leaning towards an adjustment because which one will be marketed is part of a decision tree.
—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖 [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,288 posts in 4,665 threads, 1,583 registered users;
online 10 (0 registered, 10 guests [including 7 identified bots]).
Forum time: Monday 02:29 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Don’t compromise yourself.
You are all you’ve got.    Janis Joplin

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5